Recently I had lunch in a Delhi restaurant with one of our Indian readers, the philosopher and a sayid (that is a descendent of the Prophet) Professor Syed Zaidi. Zaidi was concerned with the 9/11 movement and with its investigations that apparently indicated involvement of some high-placed Jews. Even more he was concerned with the position of Professor Noam Chomsky, and he forwarded me a letter by Kevin Barrett (“Chomsky – Hero or Gatekeeper?”) and an article by our friend Professor James Petras who aired similar accusations. When I defended Noam, Zaidi wrote: “The general view of Chomsky is increasingly more harsh than your own. If you do feel he is after all not so bad, why not write about it. This is a topic, especially the role of gatekeeper, that deserves to be aired with your group. Frankly, I find views such as those of Petras, Jeff Blankfort and Kevin Barrett quite liberating, and I do believe that there is life beyond courtesy.” Here is my response.
Noam Chomsky and the 9/11 Crusaders
By Israel Shamir
Walking around town, we are sometimes accosted by well-meaning people who are greatly devoted to a cause. It can be a Kurdish refugee replete with blood-curdling photos of Turkish atrocities, or an Iranian émigré with a petition to sign, or, if we are lucky, it could be Mia Farrow asking us to condemn the Chinese. These good people do not take no for an answer. They grasp your buttonhole and keep it in their sweaty hands until you sign their petition or ask them rather impolitely to buzz off. Then they explode in a fury not unlike that of a woman scorned.
Such a thing happened to the great luminary Noam Chomsky. He was accosted by one Kevin Barrett, a 9/11 enthusiast, whom he tried to reason with politely, but was eventually forced to tell to get off. An infuriated Barrett published an acrimonious attack: “Chomsky, an anemic speaker with all the charisma of a garden slug, endlessly bashes the USA in a whiney voice, phrasing his criticism in terms that only the sectarian left will agree with. Chomsky's boring, unpleasant style, and his obsessively anti-American argument, identifies anti-Empire with anti-American.”
What did Chomsky do to deserve this abuse? If one delves into Barrett’s tedious torrent of vituperation, one finds that his main objection to Chomsky is that the Boston Professor does not want to fight Barrett’s war for crediting Bush and Mossad with 9/11. And so he does not. Does he have to? Barrett tried to push Chomsky into immersing himself in the technicalities of 9/11 “Truth Movement” discourse, and refused to take no for an answer. You know these guys: anyone who does not agree with them is an agent of the Enemy. Chomsky did well to retort: “That's a curious feature of the Truth Movement … the curious ‘with us or against us’ mentality that pervades much of the movement: either you accept our claims, or you're a ‘left gatekeeper.’”
There is always a place for critique and argument -- even against Chomsky, and I have had my go at that, too. However, there are some red lines we should try to observe in friendly critique, and this one was a crude ad hominem and paranoid attack. Barrett is similar to the holocaust-obsessed Jews (and their ‘denying’ counterparts) who need your confirmation of their narrative and do not let go of your buttonhole until you respond. Let Barrett fight this war himself, without Chomsky at his disposal. This is a free country, more or less. For instance, I do not deny or confirm holocausts and massacres. Peak Oil does not pique me overmuch. And as for 9/11 whodunit, I feel that the 911 Truth Movement of Barrett et al. trivializes the event, turning it into a successful insurance swindle. I wrote about the event, at the time it took place:
“The kamikaze could be practically anybody: American Nationalists, American Communists, American Fundamentalist Christians, American Anarchists, anybody who rejects the twin gods of the dollar and the M-16, who hates the stock market and interventions overseas, who dreams of America for Americans, who does not want to support the drive for world domination. They could be Native Americans returning to Manhattan , or Afro-Americans who still have not received compensation for slavery.
They could be foreigners of practically any extraction, as Wall Street and the Pentagon ruined many lives of people all over the globe. Germans can remember the fiery holocaust of Dresden with its hundreds of thousands of peaceful refugees incinerated by the US Air Force. The Japanese will not forget the nuclear holocaust of Hiroshima . The Arab world still feels the creeping holocaust of Iraq and Palestine . Russians and East Europeans feel the shame of Belgrade . Latin Americans think of American invasions of Panama and Granada , of destroyed Nicaragua and defoliated Colombia . Asians count their dead of Vietnam War , Cambodia bombings, Laos CIA operations in millions. Even a pro-American, Russian TV broadcaster could not refrain from saying, ‘now Americans begin to understand the feelings of Baghdad and Belgrade’.
The Riders could be anybody who lost his house to the bank, who was squeezed from his work and made permanently unemployed, who was declared an Untermench by the new Herrenvolk. They could be Russians, Malaysians, Mexicans, Indonesians, Pakistanis, Congolese, Brazilians, Vietnamese, as their economy was destroyed by Wall Street and the Pentagon. They could be anybody, and they are everybody. Their identity is quite irrelevant as their message is more important than their personalities, and their message is read loud and clear in the choice of targets.”
This was also the view of the late French thinker Jean Baudrillard: “In the end it was they who did it but we who wished it. If we do not take this into account, the event loses its symbolic dimension; it becomes a purely arbitrary act. . . (A)nd in their strategic symbolism the terrorists knew they could count on this unconfessable complicity.” He saw 9/11 as “arguably the most potent symbolic event since the crucifixion of Christ”, says Bradley Butterfield.
In other words, the act of 9/11 was by far too powerful of a symbol to give it away to the Enemy. Not in vain did people all over the world rejoice when this Mammon symbol collapsed. The knowledge that the Americans may be beaten on their home ground has comforted the innumerable victims of the Empire. I do not know who did it, but it was planned and executed by people of great spirit.
I can’t accept the Mossad and/or the Jews as the perpetrators of the 9/11, not because it is an antisemitic claim. My readers know that this consideration has never stopped me before. It’s the other way around: I consider it a deeply pro-Jewish claim implying that only Jews are capable of enterprises of great pith and moment, while others prefer to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and never take arms against a sea of troubles. In a way, the Jewish perpetration theory shows how far this belief in Jewish superiority has entered the hearts of Americans and of many Muslims: “if it was done and it did not flop, it’s got to be Jews”. We Israelis are more critical; we say “if it did not flop, it can’t be the Mossad”.
This does not mean that one has to subscribe to the 19 Osama warriors’ conspiracy as presented by US officialdom. Of many kamikaze attacks, that of 9/11 towers above the rest. It cannot be compared with any other, certainly not with any Islamic suicide attack. The assault on the very symbol of Mammon and at the heart of its military might was a great, paradigmatic event. It is easier to believe that this feat was done by avenging angels, by St Michael in person, rather than by five merry Mossad agents or by Bush and Cheney’s accomplices. It is easier to agree with Baudrillard that the Twin towers had committed suicide in order not to be outdone by the pilots, than it is with Barrett et al that it was done by crafty Jew Larry Silverstein in order to collect insurance.
Baudrillard spoke of people who “try everything to discredit their actions. Thus we call them "suicidal" and "martyrs," and add immediately that such martyrdom does not prove anything. But such a moral argument can be reversed. If the voluntary martyrdom of kamikazes proves nothing, then the involuntary martyrdom of the victims cannot prove anything either, and there is something obscene in making it a moral argument.”
Unwillingly, Barrett and the Truth Movement are engaged in undermining and discrediting the supreme sacrifice of those who died to knock off the Towers. I understand Noam Chomsky, who did not want to support this effort. Nor did he want to uphold the arrogant American view of 9/11 as the worst lie and the most dreadful atrocity ever. Chomsky suggested that Barrett compare this lie with “the massacre of 4 million people in Indochina or the Reaganite terror, leaving some 200,000 tortured and mutilated bodies in Central America .”
“But qui bono?!” – I hear them calling. – “The Jews (call them Zionists, or Neocons, if you wish) profited from 9/11. Even Netanyahu said recently that 9/11 was good for Israel .”
There is no doubt that the Jews used 9/11 to its fullest extent; but they can make use of any event due to their media control. Be it a Mars landing, a victory over Germany , a defeat in Iraq , oil price rise or the dollar’s collapse – they can use it to their advantage. They do not have to fly to Mars, knock down the dollar – or the Twin Towers , themselves.
“In order to succeed, a terrorist needs dynamite and newspaper”, quipped a Jewish terrorist in 1901. In 2001, a hundred years later, a newspaper alone would suffice. With newspapers, or rather, with TV under one’s control, one can utilize others’ dynamite for one’s own benefit. One can expropriate others’ actions freely, even others’ supreme sacrifices. In such situations, qui bono? does not apply. Everything, even the most damning event will be turned for their benefit – as long as they will do the explaining.
Noam Chomsky does not fight the Truth Movement. Let these good people continue with their research of steel and concrete boiling points; let them accuse the administration, the CIA, the Jews and Mossad as much as they wish. Their struggle has some positive value: it undermines public trust in mainstream media and in good intentions of the authorities. They may try to understand that their position is not the only one possible: others may actually approve of the attack, or consider it of little importance, or just have other fish to fry.
People attach the “left gatekeeper” label to anybody who does not agree with them with great ease; but this pertinent expression should be used against pundits who fight us, not against allies and neutrals.
Our friend Jim Petras had unleashed such philippics against Chomsky: “Noam Chomsky has long been one of the great obfuscators of AIPAC and the existence of Zionist power over US Middle East policy... To continue to masquerade as ‘war critics’ while ignoring the central role of the Zionist Power Configuration makes pundits like Chomsky, Moyers and Powers and their acolytes irrelevant to the anti-war struggle. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.”
Petras also wants Chomsky to fight his war, that is the war against Jewish establishment (he calls it ‘Zionist Power Configuration’ ). Yes, it would be nice, but then, Petras won’t be needed. Instead of seeing Noam Chomsky as an enemy (“part of the problem”), it is better to view him as an important ally covering an important part of the battle line. He does not cover all, he does not go to places Petras or I go, but he does not stop us from going. That is why it is ridiculous to call him “left gatekeeper”, as he keeps no gate locked.
We have many points of disagreement with Noam Chomsky. To mention a few:
(1) He supports the obsolete idea of Two States in Israel/Palestine and thus of preserving the Jewish state, while we call to undo it and replace it with One state where Jews are equal rather than superior.
(2) He considers the American support of Israel being derived from “the imperial interests”, (‘Chomsky thesis’: “Israel is good for true imperial interests of the US elites, and the Jewish Lobby is powerful exactly because its line coincides with these interests of elites”) while we think that this support is caused by the commanding heights the Jews occupy in the US discourse.
We argued for our views and against his, sine ira et studio, in many articles, both our own and those of other writers published on our site or circulated. My essay Fiesta of St. FerminRNR (included in the book The Galilee Flowers) dealt and debunked the Chomsky thesis in 2001. It caused very interesting polemics. I discussed it with Chomsky. In Spider Web, we brought up the polemics of Noah Cohen who called Chomsky’s position on Palestine "Apologetics for Injustice". We published Jeffrey Blankfort’s ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ and ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic. We published a very censorious article by Bob Finch, who described Noam Chomsky as “the chief Rabbi of the left who absolves the Jewish state of guilt and responsibility for its apartheid regime and its military belligerence against neighbouring countries.” We published harsh critique of Chomsky’s views qua the Lobby by Pappe, Blankfort and Petras in Contra Chomsky and by Mazin Qumsiyeh., see also Chomsky under Fire.
Despite many, many attacks on him, Chomsky never responded in kind. He always remained polite, even courteous. He had never ever blocked a publication. He is going his way and let us respect it. Light infantry and heavy artillery have different modes of operation. Chomsky is our heavy cannon, while Petras or Gilad Atzmon or Israel Shamir, we are light scouts, the reconnaissance unit. We should go further than he does, but he is our fallback. Let us cherish this man and his activity.
The bottom line was editorialized by Ian Buckley in his In Defence of Shamir .. and Chomsky
“I would content that Noam is basically an honest and very knowledgeable man, despite his occasional personal blind spots. It should be freely admitted that Chomsky doesn't go far enough on the Middle East . Whatever the slight defects and blind spots in this particular area, he still deserves kudos for his excellent, indeed pioneering, investigations into the distortions of the mass media and the profoundly undemocratic nature of 'democratic' societies. After a reading of Chomsky, you are inoculated for good against the foetid netherworld of the mainstream media. There is nothing wrong at all with a little criticism, but we shouldn't lose sight of who the 'good guys' really are. After all, there are so few of them around. And in my book, both Shamir and Chomsky are good guys.”
Responses to Israel Shamir's article
Noam Chomsky and the 9/11 crusaders
From James R. Hanson, Ohio
I have valued your E-mail messages for as many years as you have been sending them, and see you as exceptionally well-informed and balanced on the subject of Israel 's relations with its neighbors. I have written letters to the editor on the subject, to the displeasure of local Jewish leaders, since a first letter in 1984. You have been one of my major guides. I was first concerned to write to protest the coverup of the USS Liberty attack by Israeli planes and ships, for which I took Israel to task until I came to the belief that they had played their usual role, doing dirty work for the United States .
I've seen a video of Noam Chomsky trying not to talk about 9/11 by saying it was nothing of importance, of which I made a transcript. I know Kevin Barrett personally and admire him as a man of virtue and a patriotic American. Yes, those who refuse to see that the 9/11 attacks were a U.S. project, necessarily with the cooperation of Israel and Saudi Arabia , are in effect "the enemy," as you say. Those of us who call it a "false flag" attack are considered incipient terrorists who expect themselves to be among the first to fill the detention centers being arranged for us by the Bush administration and its larcenous friends at Halliburton, if we don't shut up, or even if we do.
Why should we go so far as to consider unbelievers "the enemy"?
We deal with them as normally as we can, which requires effort. Members of families have differing beliefs on the subject, which causes detraction from family harmony. Typically they want us to try not to take our ideas so seriously. If one sees a train coming because of better vision or better hearing, or a more advantageous viewpoint, he warns people on the track to get out of the way. In this case, they throw rocks and tell us not to spoil their picnic.
The idea is that we have studied the facts and can come to no other conclusion, any more than you could if you were to examine the subject with curiosity and objectivity. I have just completed a study of the Pentagon event which I find clearly reveals U.S. military complicity. It is 36 pages, in effect an outline for a book. There is no doubt. My Jewish friends, with one exception, wonder if I have become an anti-Semite in my advanced years. This country, step by step, has been ruined under the Bush administration for the simple reason that the media looks away, so that the 9/11 truth that would send George W. Bush and company to prison cannot be used against him. Both of his elections were rigged, as we who live in Columbus , Ohio are aware, where the tally came out in his favor despite well-proven machinations, currently under review in a new action at law here. He is not truly president, but a usurper, one with no conscience who has repeatedly and reliably proven his heresy.
If the truth of 9/11 had come out in 2002, there would have been no invasion of Afghanistan, no Iraq war, none of the arrogant, purposely self-destructive acts of government that have occurred. The economy is about to fall apart, with no visible bottom, giving Bush the environment he needs to use National Security Presidential Directive 51 to declare martial law and cancel the November election. There is much more to it than this. In any year that the truth had been given space in the New York Times, he could have been stopped. Now it's too late. The scoffers, whom you have joined, to my disappointment, can shortly declare victory. Their prize is a ruined nation with a broken military and a well-deserved reputation in the world as a monster of calamity and death. This is the country for which I avidly went to war in World War II. I, and all other veterans of that war or any of the other devised conflicts since then, are betrayed. We fly the flag for a past era, not the present, other than as a symbol of what appears to be a vain hope.
You must forgive Kevin Barrett if he was exasperated with Noam Chomsky. So am I. If you saw the video I did (of which I made a transcript), it would be clear to you that Chomsky knows the truth, which makes him an officer in the movement to destroy America . America . I know we're naive, but we thought it was an excellent idea. Kevin has sacrificed a normal life to fight the true war for his country, for no profit and even less future. Kevin knows what the result will be, as the know-nothing bloc lies in his way, transfixed by the tell-nothing media. It's a personal thing for any patriot.
You are now a declared part of that bloc, and to my chagrin, a strong voice in it--one that is well aware of the storm of speaking out against a majority and the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." You have always been one to go a layer deeper than the rest to found your beliefs. You should come down to our layer on this one.
I still trust your integrity, which is why I write this. Because of your situation and your relationships there is a strong pull for you not to break away from the nay-sayers, the know-nothings, see-nothings, hear nothings, speak nothings who cower behind the media wall that has been provided for their comfort.
Chomsky has been forced to choose, and he steps behind the wall. I understand your position as similar. You have dedicated your life and your personal well-being to bringing out the truth of Zionism, a voice badly needed; yet if you were to speak out to seriously question the 9/11 event you feel that voice would be stilled by the loss of respect by those Jews, and non-Jews who have come to sympathize with the Jews, who have come to your side. Jews, by polling data, are the prominent element to ridicule the "9/11 truthers," if for no other reason, that Israel was the only nation benefitted by the attack, and is also one which would have a very painful experience if an honest investigation were conducted.
Your choice to see and speak is not one to be considered as a choice with equal effects. It involves the destruction of the United States of America, killed with a lie, proof that instead of being a democratic republic that set a pattern for all the world, it is the ultimate proof, for all who consider it in the future, that it is an illusion, a pitiful attempt to appear to give the power of government to the people themselves. As in the wolf pack, the survivors will be the strong and the merciless. But no matter how well they succeed, they are still wolves, not human beings.
Yours in earnest,
James R. Hanson
Attorney at Law, retired
Columbus , Ohio
Dear James, I value your sincere words. Certainly the truth of 9/11 is more complicated than the government version; I have no doubt about it. But consider:
If you were an extremely powerful Jew able to do 9/11, why would you attack Twin Towers ? Would not you rather send 20 Arab fanatics in full battle dress to massacre a kindergarten, a school, and eat hearts of American babies in live broadcast?
And besides, my article is about something else. It is about Noam Chomsky who is entitled not to be abused whatever are his thoughts. Chomsky was not afraid to write foreword of Faurisson; he is afraid of nothing. But he has other fish to fry, and he fries it extremely well.
Wishing you every success in unmasking the plotters,
From Ken Freeland, Texas
I must concur with Professor Zaidi, as well as Jim Petras, Jeff Blankfort and yes, Kevin Barrett, regarding the role played by Noam Chomsky -- that of Left Gatekeeper. In fact, I think one can almost the question to two issues when it comes to Left gatekeeping: Israel/Palestine (and most especially the question of Zionist control of US Middle East policy) and 9/11 (whether or not one accepts the government's Al-Queda conspiracy theory or not). Anyone who openly addresses these issues and at least asks intelligent questions is a gate opener, anyone who prates on dogmatically (like Chomsky) that Israel nothing but a US satrap and the official version of 9/11 will do just fine is a Left gatekeeper: one who uses his or her influence to discourage others from questioning this "received wisdom."
You live in Israel , Adam. Imagine how you would feel if the suicide bombing attributed to the Palestinian Arabs turned out to be an inside job, perpetrated by your own Jewish government. How would you feel then, when you heard people talking about the "stupendous martyrdoms" of the bombers? The 9/11 Truth movement (if which I am a longstanding member) has not been able to demonstrate conclusively (yet!) that 9/11 was an inside job (by our government) or a false flag operation (by a foreign government), but we have been able to demonstrate conclusively is the logical impossibility of the official explanation for the events of 9/11, as well as the fact that it was used to launch several Middle Eastern wars which did nothing to punish the alleged perpetrators (and everything to benefit Israel and the military-industrial complex).
Kevin Barrett is no mere 911 enthusiast. He is the news anchor on the up and coming noliesradio. org....an internet news service with a 9/11 truth focus. Moreover, his characterization of Chomsky is spot on, at least as far as his style and his Left gatekeeper role are concerned. Is Chomsky valueless then? That all depends. Chomsky can in fact be recommended to the neophyte academic who is just beginning to question his or her government. Because Chomsky is prolific in describing the evil of WHAT our government is doing with its foreign policy. The problem comes with his explanations of WHY the government is doing all these evil things: he is a virtual apologist for the Israel lobby, constantly dismissing its influence as negligible. But thousands of victims know otherwise. Here one should rip the volume of Chomsky away from the (advanced) inquiring reader, and give him something substantial: say, a book by Jim Petras or Jonathan Cook. When it comes to explaining US perfidy, there is more truth in one page of Petras than in two hours of Chomsky's droning delivery.
I am sorry that you appear to lack empathy with Americans who have been had by our government with respect to 9/11. You apparently nurture a conspiracy theory of your own in which the plotters are enemies of mammon and its minions. We in the 9/11 Truth movement have good reason to suspect otherwise, but the evidence remains mostly circumstantial. But the truth will out one day. And when it does, Chomsky and those who defend his lack of intellectual rigor on this question will be deemed irrelevant, perhaps even to have been obstructionist. And I would like to ask you personally to answer the following question Adam, which must be answered by all those who, like you, invest the events of 9/11 with symbolic significance: if the perpetrators were so spirited about their attack on these symbols of American power, where is their signature? 9/11 Truth would have little basis to exist if the 9/11 plotters, whoever they were, gave a clear accounting of themselves, manifesto-style, to a terrorized world. But this is just what did NOT happen. You and those who believe similarly must ask yourself: why go through all the trouble of planning this "superb action" that shocked the world, and not have a thing to say about its purpose? Is that really how terrorists operate? Do they not commit acts of terrorism in the first place to publicize their cause? Is not taking credit for the act a sine qua non of all genuine terrorism? Why is it so absent here that the government had to manufacture "Bin Laden" videos that were afterwards proved to be fraudulent? These questions cannot be begged.
I would encourage you to educate yourself to the scholarship of the 9/11 truth movement and familiarize yourselves with our essential arguments, instead of glibly dissing them. Perhaps start out with Dr. David Ray Griffin's classic study and proceed from there. We need scientific analysis here, Adam, not rhetoric. Focusing on the style of some of the players here has distracted you from the substance. As one tomato said to the other tomato: you're falling behind: time to ketchup!!
Dear Ken, I wrote < http://www.israelsh amir.net/ English/Paradise Now.htm> about possibility of the Palestinian terrorist attacks being orchestrated by Israeli security forces. Yes, it is possible. But only minor attacks. Airplane hijacks etc are too tricky. They may allow something to happen; but to organize from scratch is another thing altogether. I fully agree with you that the government version is unacceptable, and I support your right to search for what actually happened. But equally I support Noam Chomsky’s right to stay away from this controversy. If you and I can go beyond Noam, it is only because Noam secured a territory of discourse for our advance. As for Left Gatekeepers: this may refer only to people who actually block our ideas to go through, people who actually fight against us. None of these refers to Noam Chomsky, and I find him innocent of this charge.
From Richard Wilcox, Tokyo
Dear Israel ,
I got my radical education from Chomsky in the 1990s (yes, that recently) through the Boulder , Colorado , Alternative Radio audio archives produced by David Barsamian. I recall one of the best interviews was titled "The US Economic System: Robbing People Blind." That interview could take place today without batting an eyelash. Of course, Chomsky does not target the Federal Reserve or International Jewry, so that is where he draws the line, but you could learn something from the man. In recent years I went of Chomsky once I learned of the power of the Israel Lobby and the flaws in his logic on that topic. I once prompted Barsamian to interview Blankfort but I think it would be a cold day in H before that would happen. By the way, I noticed another top Jewish political critic, Michel Chossudovsky also affirms the idea of Israel as the US pitbull to carry out " Washington 's" orders in the Middle East . This thesis crumbles on thorough examination (it is the World Jewry/Israel Lobby after all) but won't lose it's legs due to heavy control by Jews and their unthinking followers in the US Left.
Regarding Kevin Barrett, a good soul to be sure, so it is too bad he went nasty and ad hominem attack on Chomsky rather than simply refuting his flawed logic regarding 911. I pointed out to Barrett the hypocrisy of "911 Truthers" insisting that the Left Gatekeepers are hypocritical when the 911 Truthers themselves are not Truth Troops when it comes to a more historically accurate understanding of World War II (so often evoked to hammer home the point about rising US police state) and the "Jewish Holocaust." We constantly hear the refrain from these folks (and now Jim Marrs has a new big book about those evil "Nazis" taking over the world, not World Jewry) about how badly the Nazis behaved and the alleged atrocities of the Nazis against Jews, but when it comes to a scientifically rigorous and historically balanced examination of the Holocaust on a par with what brought down Building 7 on 9-11, there is a gigantic double standard which scatters concrete dust across the horizon. The 911 Truthers cannot respond to this double standard and prefer to ignore us Holocaust Revisionist folks as kooks, I guess.
Furthermore, the 911 Truthers are reluctant to deeply investigate the accumulative data that 911 was not only an "inside job" but a Jew Job, as documented by our good friend Brother Nathanael at www.realjewnews. com. While Barrett has broached this topic with some fine guests on his program including Splitting the Sky and Barry Zwicker, he does not take the ball and run with it. Wonder why.
Just a few observations from Mars,
Best, Richard Wilcox, Tokyo
Shamir replies: Indeed there are some agendas beside that of Truthers.
From Jocelyn Braddel, Dublin
Dear Israel , I really like and welcome this text about Noam Chomsky. A very kind man, a man who never lets the honest moment pass him by without taking note of it. I should have another Handstand ready in a couple of weeks’ time and you can be sure that your text will be there! I hope you and your family are always well.
Best regards, Jocelyn
From Noam Chomsky, Massachusetts
Thanks for sending. I won't comment on the TM, or Petras.
On what you wrote, only one comment. It's true that I've never supported a "one-state settlement," and still don't. I also don't support it for other complex societies either: like the Spanish state, Belgium , the UK , and others. But since childhood, I've always, without exception, advocated a binational state. I've written about that extensively, including books and articles. To my knowledge, I'm one of the very few people who actually does advocate a binational state -- and I know of no one who advocates a one-state settlement. Note that I say "advocate," not "propose" or "support." One can propose or support anything one likes -- that everyone should love one another and live in peace, for example. Advocacy requires more than that.
I stand corrected. Bi-national state in Palestine was discussed by Magnes and Brit Shalom some 50 years ago, but not often since then; that’s why I made this mistake. Sorry.
From Tom Mysiewicz, Oregon
I, too, support rational discourse. And the Jews are not responsible for every ill on Earth--although there is circumstantial evidence in abundance they played a role in 911.
The problems I have with the external-mover theory of 911 are the following:
*NO personnel or officials responsible for air defenses and tactical responses to such situation were disciplined to any extent or otherwise punished;
*Dick Cheney took over prime responsibility for air defense in Continental US (CONUS) a month prior to the attacks;
*Cheney was a signatory on a document in the 1990s longing for such an attack;
*Powdering of concrete, presence of thermite/thermate, the rate of collapse, cool-burning fire, etc. ALL point to a controlled demolition using internal explosive charges--not an air crash. (Note that in WWII the Empire State Building survived the crash of a fully loaded bomber plane!);
*Likewise, in the so-called Pentagon attack we see no debris field, wings, engines, correct-size entry hole, amount of fire and damage consistent with such a strike, etc.;
*There is evidence that both US and ISraeli intelligence had the so-called hijackers under surveillance and that an Israeli film crew was set up prior to the "attack" at the WTC;
*WTC #7 collapsed WITHOUT any external causes; and,
*No substantial efforts were made to close the U.S.-Mexican border, where Mid-Easterners could reasonably be expected to infiltrate from.
I do not doubt that U.S. enemies are capable of striking the U.S. I just don't think this is an example.
From Hesham Bahari , Egypt
Funny I got this email just after I got yours in defence of Chomsky.
Both you and Chomsky belong to my favourite authors. So I hope you understand my disappointment concerning your reaction to this question.
I'm not saying Israel did it, but whoever did is no angel, that's for sure. That's a very naive thought indeed!!!
Empires are built on false flag operations, which sooner or later brings them down as well. Pearl Harbor, Tonkin Bay , The US Liberty , Berlin 's Reichstag etc...
Taking in consideration the neo-con program which started in the 80ies if not before I see no problem in explaining 911, not the whos and hows and whens of it, but the whys.
It's all plain common sense. So please don't mix it up with angelology :)
Any way, I don't like people grasping my buttonhole more than you do. But I will keep to my Griffin so long. He makes sense to me.
And of course I agree fully with your defence of Chomsky, in spite of my disappointment.
Air Traffic Controller Peter Zalewski was responsible for both New York Tower crashes
and also was controller for Egypt 990 crash in 1999
Israel Defense Force Sayeret Matkal Branch -- Sayeret Matkal is a deep-penetration unit that has been involved in assassinations, the theft of foreign (US) defense, financial, industrial and diplomatic secrets and the theft and destruction of foreign weapons and research facilities. They did 9-11. They were tough enough, bold enough, ruthless enough, and Jewish-supremacist- racist enough to do 9-11 and lie to our faces and mock us for suspecting them ever since. They are tough enough to destroy our economy and end our threat as a source of law and justice which they are doing very successfully right now. They are determined to finish us off before we can take in the facts and develop an organized response.
Full article below:
http://investigate9 11.se/articles/ jewsdid911. html
From R Logan , the US
Hello Israel Shamir,
911 was a blood sacrifice to Lucifer by the banking elite. 911 along with many other "events" are only symptoms of the problem. It is like western medicine, where they treat the symptoms instead of the problem. The patients continue to die. We need to wake up and figure out how to eradicate the problem instead of the many symptoms that they can continually produce for our consumption.
Chomsky Responses – 2
The subject of Noam Chomsky and 9/11 apparently touched an important spot for many readers. Today we have some very powerful and insightful letters, notably a letter from intelligence community connected Jim Dean, who notices details missed by others, the architect Mark W. Chambers, with his knowledge of construction, Frank Scott provides deep explanation of 9/11 movement, Prof Hatem Radwan offers a new solution of the mystery, Akira Doujimaru provides technical details, Kim Petersen, Paul Bennett, Fried Tischler add their insights, and the Bulgarian Passionaria, Blagovesta Doncheva speaks of her disappointment with Chomsky.
As for me, I am glad that you have a chance to express your views and share them with others. I also remain with my views regarding 9/11. I was impressed with the attack, and it did not rub off. Thus a man who has spent a passionate night with a mysterious blonde, may be reluctant to admit that she was sent by the CIA.
As for Noam Chomsky, he was, and is the man who gave me new tools of discourse in 1990, when the Soviet Union was falling apart. He also nev er attacked me or my friends, and that was not easy, I am sure. His views are more subtle than his adversaries and supporters perceive. So he may be certain of my respect and admiration.
From Jim Dean , Alabama
Dear Israel ,
The anthrax angle seems to get lost in the shuffle here, and it is a key part to all of this.
The Intel community had known beforehand what the best way to use anthrax would be. And that would be to get 50 martyrs to go around to 50 metropolitan cities and pass anthrax tainted money around, including some airport stops.
After a few day with mass outbreaks becoming known and that the currency was the distribution vehicle, the models showed the economy would shut down. No one would touch any cash...not knowing that the perpetrators would probably not have a lot of the stuff.
But what happened was a very targeted use of the small amount they had, and it was used to get the most press coverage. And there were no martyrs. The effect was to scare the hell out of people, and to then herd them into support for an attack on whoever, and that is exactly what happened.
The anthrax deal had all the makings of a classic 'off the shelf' plan which certain agencies have ready for if and when they need to steer the public a certain way and do it quickly. I can think of only two intelligence agencies that could have pulled this off and gotten away with it. And I don't think ours did it.
You will notice how the media stayed off the story when the attempt to frame the poor patsy began to look like an obvious set up. He is suing the media now to find out who the leakers were. I wish him good luck. The patsy for the Olympic bombing here in Atlanta died a couple of years ago due to obesity complications. He also knew what it was like to be on the short end of the stick.
The other thing that surprised the Intel community was that with the invasion of Afghanistan and all the losses they took they were not able to launch any attacks here, including the ones which brother Shamir describes, loner attacks in shopping centers, etc, where the perpetrator was not part of a network where you have multiple chances to stop due to intercepting their communications. Any good cop or counter Intel person will tell you that stopping these loner types attacks is impossible.
It came out later that Osama's goal was to bring the US into a combat situation in the MidEast and suffer a long drawn out Viet Nam style defeat that would also topple the Arab Kingdoms, a semi version of the Christian evangelical loonies 'end times'. So under that scenario additional attacks here were not needed. What was needed would be growing anti-war sentiment and that has come to pass, but not for the reasons that Osama may have wished.
To this day most Americans do not know that our own Civil War stated out as a kind of coup. While Congress was in recess the Lincoln warmongers had multiple provocations in the works to resupply and land troops in the Southern forts that were under a truce. At the time that was clearly an act of war. But their plan was to get the Confederates to fire on the resupply ships and then accuse them of starting the war. It worked very well. In the end Lincoln killed more Americans than Hitler and Tojo combined. Yet, he is still revered here today in the land of the free. The Red Chinese, when defending their treatment of Tibet , use Lincoln as their hero. Our press never reports that interesting twist over here.
To this day I can rarely find a military officer, especially a Yankee, than knows that the loading manifests for the Fort Sumter ships have been open in the archives for a hundred years. They clearly show the troops and cannons on the manifests. But these inconvenient facts are ignored by the professional historians. It has something to do with hurting book sales.
Intellectual dishonesty is an epidemic here. Intellectual honesty has been replaced with an empowerment shortcut that eliminates years of research in the archives. Everyone is entitled to the version of an even that they like best. And that is the end of the story.
I ran into this in a major way when confronting Zioholics with Jewish sourced material that devastated their positions. The Zios working with the Nazis during WWII upset them the most. But I found that 99 out of a 100 just completely ignored the archival proof. It was a programmed response as virtually 100% of them did that. For a such a smart people I was quite surprised.
Another version of this is when attempting to deprogram Christian Zionists over here I use declassified US intel material. It shocks the hell out of them. They never challenge the material as it is irrefutable (like the Liberty incident) but they, too, fall back on 'preferring their version of the event'. They put a human right spin on it. They have a right to believe whatever they want, for any reason that they want.
When I did my prison interviews here years ago I was shocked to see that the young gang bangers laughed when I asked them what they thought about white slavery. They thought I was joking with them. They really believed that only black people had ever been slaves.
This was not intellectual dishonesty on their part, but a horrible education system and a cult of victimization. ..a kind of knock off of the Hebrew Klan Jews claiming that the main event of WWII was the slaughter of the Jews. The other people were of no consequence whatsoever. We are not equal after all, especially in victimhood.
But I must say that over the years I have deprogramed some Zionist Jews but I have yet to deprogram a Christian Zionist. They lay the devil smear on you and run away so you can't get them to even listen. They are trained well.
My point here is that if military officers today still have no idea that our own civil war was an aggressively staged event, the kind that Germans got hanged for at Nuremburg, I don't give much chance of the 911 unknowns getting any traction even it the material becomes available down the road.
Martin Luther King's last night of his life orgy tapes have been known about in certain circles for many years now. The local cops had his room bugged and like using multiple hookers to relax before a busy next day. None other than Ralph David Abernathy mentioned this in his book. Our mass media over here completely ignored it.
When I share this with black folks they accuse me of wickedly smearing Mr. King. When I tell them that Abernathy was the source they lock up. They look like a kid when explaining that their really isn't a Santa Claus. I am not moralizing on King here. Both Johnson and Kennedy reduced the Secret Service into being pimps by requiring them to bring their hookers in and out of the White House. When Johnson's hooker came in all the secretaries stopped typing so there was total silence and they could hear better. When they finally heard the toilet flush they would all go back to the people's business. I am not aware of anyone ever resigning over the indignity.
George Bush's grandaddy, Prescot Bush, had his companies seized during WWII for 'trading with the enemy'. But what is really astounding it that the $3 million that the Treasury department got for them, old Prescott 's friend miraculously got the Feds to return the money to him. That money founded the Bush political dynasty and we would have most likely had neither president These archives are at Fort Meade . They are public and our media will not touch them with a ten foot pole.
The biggest disappointment of all my years in TV and journalism and my former careers before that, is how few people are really interested in the truth. When they say they are, what 90% of them really mean is their version of the truth.
Did Standard Oil of New Jersey refuel German subs at sea during WWII? Yes.
Did ITT (International Telegraph and Telephone) design the guidance systems for the V1 and V2 rockets and deliver several upgrades during the war via Switzerland ? Yes.
Did ITT make ball bearings here and ship them to Germany via Sweden ? Yes. Was the head of ITT a retired American Army officer? Yes.
Did US banks move money around for Germany during WWII? Yes. But nobody cares.
That is the harshest reality. Those of us who risk life and limb to dig it out are doing so for a dwindling audience.
Heritage TV... Atlanta
From Mark W. Chambers , Canada
Dear Mr. Shamir,
I first wrote you in late 2001 or early 2002, if I recall correctly; and at that time it was to express my gratitude for your empathy for the land and native people of Palestine and your brilliant writing. Since that time I believe I have read every piece on your website, every posting on your readers list, as well as your 4 recent books (or are there more?). My intention for much time now has been to join the reader's list as a contributor and not merely a reader. The timing of your latest piece "Noam Chomsky and the 9/11 Crusaders" has motivated me to do just that. In fact, it is because of 9/11/2001 that I became aware of you and your writing for on the day of 11 September 2001 when my oldest son exclaimed, as he was watching live television coverage, the tower is collapsing, I ran to the TV in disbelief repeating "that is impossible". The characteristics of the collapse were and are impossible: based on the aircraft impact and low temperature fires the anatomy of the collapse totally defies the laws of physics, properties of materials, and design fundamentals of architecture and engineering.
That aside, I immediately began searching for alternative coverage of what had transpired because I suspected something was foul in the state of the United States and assumed the main stream media would serve up its usual propaganda and disinformation. It was when I tuned in, on one particular occasion, to Arab News that I came across an article by yourself on issues in the Holy Land . I was so moved by your writing that I was compelled to send off a brief, but heartfelt, note to you.
So 9/11 brought me to you and your writings initially and 9/11 has me responding nearly seven years later. Since 11 September 2001 I have read voraciously on the subject from Paul Thompson, to Michael Ruppert, to Robert Fisk, to Michel Chossudovsky, to Ramzy Baroud, to Edward Said, to David Ray Griffin, to many others, all the while tracking the movements of ZOG through your writings and readers list. Not everyone has come to the same conclusion. For instance Robert Fisk, I believe, still makes reference to the 19 hijackers while Michael Ruppert pinpoints Dick Cheney as the maestro of 9/11. I also exchanged a few emails with Michael Neumann regarding an article posted on Counterpunch in which I challenged Mr. Neumann's perpetuation of the 'official' explanation of 9/11, in particular the dynamics of the buildings' collapses. He responded saying an architect friend of his had also mentioned the anomolies to him and that he would delve into it more. Similarly, Mr. Chomsky can consider this event however he sees fit. As you rightly point out, he has other fish to fry. I did read the email exchanges between Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Barrett and regret it degenerated to an acrimonious and stalemate position, however, I was disturbed that Mr. Chomsky did not appear to acknowledge the direct and causal link between what he referred to as a relatively small event of 9/11 and the so-called war on terror (actually war of terror as someone correctly stated) and the dismantling of the US Constitution and, by extension, the impact on the gutless, heartless, and soulless government of my country, Canada.
Mr. Chomsky is critical of the 9/11 truthers seemingly because they have not been long standing opponents of US imperialism and its decades-long devastation of foreign populations, environments, and economies. However, can the awakening of a self-described Reagan Republican be so bad? This is how Richard Gage, the San Francisco architect who started Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, describes himself. In my view, the deconstruction and analysis of the 9/11 event leads directly into the deconstruction and analysis and reconciliation of the global events which it precipitated. Can such a Reagan Republican be satisfied with a half-baked explanation or could this be a snowball in motion?
A call for an independent investigation of 9/11 was recently tabled in the Arizona Legislature by Senator Karen Johnson and in the Candian Parliament by deputy leader of the New Democratic Party Libby Davies. I am not so naive as to think the ruling elite will be overly phased by the rising rabble but what else can we do? Having said this, I am suspicious of the NDP as I have a feeling the party severely fleeced the previously intrepid Svend Robinson for his attempt to meet with Yassar Arafat a few years ago which sent Mr. Robinson back to Vancouver, tail between his legs, to deal with local neighbourhood issues. And shortly after, Mr. Robinson really fell from grace in a theft scandal. I wonder, is there a connection?
I am in the process of advocating a debate and investigation within my own professional organization (Alberta Association of Architects) of the WTC building collapses for the benefit of our profession and ultimately for the benefit of society. As Michael Ruppert correctly pointed out it is futile to attempt to base an argument on technicalities as one's opponent will always be able to find an 'expert' capable of refuting one's evidence. However, even the official explanation of the destroyed WTC 1 and 2 towers stops at the commencement of collapse and WTC 7 is barely mentioned at all. It seems as though the 'experts' don't want to say much. Michael Ruppert developed a brilliant circumstantial argument and perhaps it is now time to supplement it with a technical approach.
Moving back to my appreciation and admiration of your writing and advocacy, I am curious as to what is required to invite you as a guest speaker. I have been to many events sponsored by the Palestinian Canadian Students' Society here in Calgary (the latest being Ilan Pappe) and want to suggest to them that you be invited to speak.
Please feel free to post this if you wish. Best wishes to you and your family.
Mark W. Chambers, Architect
From Prof Hatem Radwan , Egypt :
Thanks for your article on Chomsky and the 9/11 crusaders.
First I would like to thank you for your points of disagreement with Chomsky. You are very insightful, as usual. I would like to hear from you, on your other criticisms of Chomsky, although I still have respect for him.
But I would like to add my 2-cents worth of opinion on 9/11.
I believe 9/11 is clearly more complicated than just a one-sided story. And I have no problem with Israel et al being the main driver behind much or most of 9/11 and many other evils, since Israel really survives mainly on support from others anyway. How long would Israel survive without massive USA support?
In my humble opinion, 9/11 was planned and executed by both sides of the conflict, almost like two sides of a football team, each team sees the other planning quietly, each for their own perceived benefit, and both knowing pretty well what the other side is planning for. They also started the game at the same time, with the stronger team giving the OK for the weaker team to start with an advantage. What a fateful game this is, or was. The US (and Israel ) on one side, and a small group of people who were willing to die for it on the other, whoever they are. Both teams knew and planned for 9/11, the sole superpower and Israel on one side, and that small group of people on the other. The US (and Israel ) probably infiltrated and actually supported the other guys to do just what the US desperately needed: a 2nd Pearl Harbor . At the same time, the other guys also knew very well what they wanted, probably also knowing well of the US-Israeli infiltration, and taking full advantage of it to achieve their goals.
This is, or was, probably the last opportunity for the US to finally complete the dream of the (evil) Empire they so badly wanted; and Israel happily getting everything it wants without any cost, as usual. But this had to happen before the new fast rising powers are able to interfere and close this small window of opportunity for the Empire. This is what the PNAC has been pushing for so hard. This is probably what Kissinger et al was or would be thinking.
The other guys also wanted just as badly for this 2nd Pearl Harbor to happen, for their own reasons of course. They see 9/11 as a great opportunity to take on a superpower, willing to die to defend their homeland from domination at any cost, like many people who would do that for their own country. But these people actually really wanted the US forces to come to the Middle East, fully believing that they will eventually be able to bring the US to its knees, similar to the Russians in Afghanistan , economically and psychologically, and by just killing them one-by-one. They don't want to waste their time and effort to fight Israel , they want to first weaken the real supporter behind Israel . And they believe that the apartheid Zionist state will be weakened and forced into a truly democratic one-state solution, only when the US is weakened enough, again economically and psychologically. The apartheid Zionist state is of course the real target, as a brutal, military, most racist occupation of the worst kind, as well as any other foreign occupiers. My problem with these jihaadists is that they are willing to justify killing innocent civilians to save their homeland. And also tempting the enemy to attack us. Muslims at least should not accept any of that. But isn't that what the west has justified many times over in WW2 on Germany , Japan and other conflicts. Kill civilians for us to survive? And 9/11 has been a case of tempting the enemy on both sides.
So I do believe the 9/11 crusaders are right, to a large extent, and that the US , Israel and the Mossad did play a major part in this infamy. I have no problem with believing this. As usual, you should always first find out who benefits the most from a planned operation. Both the US and Israel are really the only ones who would benefit significantly from 9/11. But the main part of this shameful Shock & Awe operation most fortunately failed to a large extent, which was the Empire, thanks to the Iraqi resistance, as well as the worldwide psychological support against this most brutal and disastrous occupation. The whole world will breathe a huge sigh of relief once the US forces leave Iraq , and what good riddance that will be.
The dreams of Empire are finally starting to fade away, al-hamd-u L-Illaah. China and Russia are beginning to be a shield against the evil Empire dreamers. And I hope we will have a multi-polar world in the near future. Our only real hope for peace in the world is the one-state Palestine for all. And that is our biggest challenge.
We are still at risk from crazy ideas from Bush et al. I may be fantasizing, but for now I am holding my breath being optimistic in spite of the current situation.
Hatem Radwan, Ph.D.
Professor, Mechanical Engineering
Misr University for Science & Technology (MUST)
From Frank Scott, California
I certainly appreciate your defense of Chomsky, and share your great respect for both his contributions and his freedom to think and act as he wishes, and not as some mental dictators might insist... he does seem to me to have a blind spot, but not about 911... his constant minimizing of the power of the jewish lobby always strikes me as odd, coming form someone so otherwise learned, but that is the subjective-objectiv e duality that drives so much of what makes us the creatures we are...as in: why can't he-she-everybody see what i see, understand and agree with what i think, interpret reality the way i do?? etc. but on the broader subject and provoked by some of the passionate responses, may i submit my column from a couple of years back, which still represents my take on the phenomena of 911 movements, or "the" 911 movement?
Fundamentalism and 911
by Frank Scott
The belief that government conspiracy was behind the 911 attacks may seem a mania among otherwise intelligent people, but it also rejects material reality. In this, it bears resemblance to another reaction to the physical world. Religious fundamentalism , supposedly Islamic but posing a far greater menace from nuclear armed Judeo-Christians, questions reality with as much passion, and as little need for verifiable evidence, as does the conspiracy faith.
Religious fundamentalism doesn’t pretend to be scientific, often denying material evidence to prove anything. In many ways it parallels a 911 movement which is based on acceptance of events as fabulist and supernatural as any believer in divinity can imagine.
If faith can move mountains, it can also apparently destroy buildings with pre wired explosives, secretly placed while thousands of people went about their business and saw nothing unusual. Faith also claims that millions more were duped into believing they saw planes crash into buildings, rather than buildings destroyed by these planted explosives or missiles. Whether about the parting of the red sea, a Savior born to a virgin, or a conspiracy beyond all conspiracies, faith can withstand any need for proof. Faith is proof of faith.
Legitimate doubts about what our government does and what it tells us have created contemporary biblical prophets who reveal almost divinely inspired knowledge about architectural principles, secreted explosives, the behavior of steel under stress, and construction and demolition principles which defy physics, as well as sanity. And this while the world seems to be falling apart, under the control of identifiable political and economic forces which are often despised, but hardly understood by zealous seekers of physical conspiracy, or blissful anticipators of metaphysical rapture.
The view of a corrupt authority which murders indiscriminately to achieve its ends is shared by people both fervently religious and devoutly secular, even as they consider each other ignorant and immoral. But believers in fabulist myth, and believers in scientific analysis which often amounts to fabulist myth , have more in common than they might willingly admit.
The frustrations that find inner peace through belief in an invisible universal force, or material powers that need only be identified as bad people who do bad things, are based on very real injustice and inhumanity. A dangerous material world under the control of unearthly forces, for some, or simply hidden behind earthly conspiracies, for others, warrants criticism and opposition. In fact, such opposition may be healthy in that it exists at all, in any form. That is, until skepticism and suspicion drives critics to flail at the air and insist that they are striking matter, or to pray for divine intervention while doing nothing to change the realm of the physical , instead seeking contentment in the realm of the metaphysical.
Neither are Eastern contempt for Western secularism and Western displeasure with reality so far apart. While the physical suffering endured by the East is much greater, mental stress in the West is so bad that many attempt escape from reality to find peace of mind, if not body. In a consumer crazed world that worships the material, seeking spiritual peace may be the expression of a healthy desire to get off the highway on which humanity seems to be speeding to disaster.
That spiritual movements often have reactionary and intolerant aspects is a mark of their development in reactionary and intolerant societies. Western dualism creates secular and religious movements as conjoined twins. Their struggle should not be with each other, but with the system which makes them two sides of the same coin.
When the religious structure is the only one offering shelter from the storm, it will be crowded with people finding explanations for reality which strike secularists as illogical, unless they seriously consider the intellectual foundation for what they often believe. It is easy for some materialists to dismiss the mythological explanation for the creation of the universe, but when science offers the big bang theory - there was nothing, and then it exploded - both groups need to accept their mutual ignorance of cosmic origins beyond their capacity to fathom, and concentrate on far more threatening earthly problems whose solutions might well be within their grasp.
The islamic fundamentalists depicted as a menace, to the West, may be confronting material reality more clearly than it is understood, by the West. Fundamentalist Christians and Jews are obsessed with the Antichrist and the AntiSemite, unable to see themselves as the Great Satan, which they clearly appear to be for the eastern world. The 911 believers in Bush as a more local antichrist need to broaden their analysis and move from evil personalities with fiendish plots to failing systems with deadly outcomes. The general perception of an ugly and cruel reality is shared by people of widely divergent belief systems. The reasons they find for things breaking down are as diverse as their cultural shaping allows, but all share a vision which is generally correct:
There needs to be substantial change in reality, or the future may be totally tragic, for all. When people begin to seek material solutions at the roots of material problems, spiritual and mental peace may be attainable, and the search for conspiracies less necessary. This calls for much greater understanding and respect among those divergent cultures and belief systems, which can hardly happen under present conditions. The bloody domination and control of reality by those adhering to doctrines of racial supremacy who think themselves more divine than other humans make it necessary for critics of reality to find common ground, before humanity finds a common grave. Faith that can move mountains needs to start moving people, towards mutual respect, democracy and peace.
From Kim Petersen, the Dissident Voice
I concur wholeheartedly with the major thrust of your essay that Noam Chomsky has the right to express his views as he chooses. It is fine to disagree with people, but it is deplorable to launch an ad hominem attack against them. Those who disagree with Chomsky would be better served if they stuck to debating the facts and logic at hand.
In this instance, Kevin Barrett, however nice a man he might otherwise be, broke trust and etiquette by revealing private correspondence without the other party's approval. That speaks very poorly on behalf of the complainant.
Two points: (1) You wrote, "If you were an extremely powerful Jew able to do 9/11, why would you attack Twin Towers ? Would not you rather send 20 Arab fanatics in full battle dress to massacre a kindergarten, a school, and eat hearts of American babies in live broadcast?"
With all due respect, this is conjecture and facetious. First, there is the reportedly big insurance pay-out to an "extremely powerful Jew." Second, there is the evoking of fear among the populace which can then be more easily manipulated by the powerful. That alleged "Arab fanatics" would target the Twin Towers , one prominent reason might be to demonstrate that even after previous thwarted attempts the enemies of the US regime show they can eventually get to their target. The message to the US public: you are never safe.
(2) "Chomsky was not afraid to write foreword of Faurisson…"
Factually inaccurate: According to Chomsky, he wrote a statement, for a friend, in defense of freedom of speech that Faurisson published against the intention of Chomsky – something Chomsky tried to stop.
I knew of, but was not well versed, with Kevin Barrett. He appears very passionate about 9-11. But I think he overstepped decency when he went public with the Chomsky correspondence. Also, even if he had received permission to publish them, he was thoroughly outperformed by Chomsky and, in the end, poured further abuse upon himself.
I have sympathy for the 9-11 "truthers"; they have been slandered a lot, and even Chomsky took a swipe at them. (I wrote about this: http://www.dissiden tvoice.org/ Mar07/Petersen13 .htm )
I also support those people who have had their free speech rights trampled on. I have written a few articles on this topic, including a few times about Ernst Zundel (http://www.dissiden tvoice.org/ Mar05/Petersen03 05.htm).
Shamir adds: for Faurisson, I disagree with Kim’s interpretation, but he insisted on it. So probably you may read yourself http://www.chomsky. info/articles/ 19810228. htm and find there, inter alia, such an incredibly strong sentence: “There are, in fact, far more dangerous manifestations of "revisionism" than Faurisson's. Consider the effort to show that the United States engaged in no crimes in Vietnam , that it was guilty only of "intellectual error." This "revisionism, " in contrast to that of Faurisson, is supported by the major institutions and has always been the position of most of the intelligentsia, and has very direct and ugly policy consequences.” Find another US intellectual, Jew or Gentile, who would be able to repeat it in writing! I think that this sentence alone may undo all the accusations against Noam as a “servant of Empire” or “ Left Ga tekeeper”.
From Kim Petersen Hi Israel , I must say that I object to [my] two emails being pieced together to appear as one. The second email (only a portion thereof) was a reply to your email, and without your email appearing, it conveys a false impression. If you want to do this, then a proper etiquette would be to ask permission first. kim Shamir replied: Please accept my apologies; it was done for place economy in what became a too-long email. I tried to preserve your comment in its entirety and summed up your position. Petersen insists: Therefore, in all fairness, I request that you inform your readers that my two emails were stitched together with parts missing and that your email in between was unpublished.
From Paul Bennett, Arizona
…I also am a 911 truther, however I completely agree that Noam is under no
compulsion to speak about it. I assume he thinks the lack of evidence
distracts us from the important themes, which already have plenty of
uncontroversial evidence. We will never know the truth about 911, just like
we will never know the truth about JFK, and MLK. Once we accept that,
we can move on to the uncontroversial themes, like We Are Being Milked
Like Cattle, and How Shall We Behave Under These Circumstances.
From Akira Doujimaru in Barcelona
I’ve read your new article “Noam Chomsky and the 9/11 Crusaders”
I might also be one of the “9/11 Crusaders” (though I personally never like this term) and I have to stress that the world has been ruled by a vast and serious fiction since that day. Evidence? I can show you the enormous facts, thousands of facts that have been recorded as photos, videos or documents, but now I have to tell you one astonishing fact.
I’ve read the articles included in the “Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers” by the NIST (National Institute of Standard and Technology), published in 2005, which has the greatest responsibility about collapses of the Twin Towers, also its “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions” in 2006, and “World Trade Center Building Performance Study” by the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) in 2002.
Most of the people in the world have believed that these institute and agency studied the cause of the Twin Towers ’ collapse sufficiently and decided completely how they collapsed. Apparently they showed us “how the collapse began” using so many pages. However, …
Sincerely I must say they have never told us about the collapse itself! There doesn’t exist only one “official explanation of collapse”!
The “collapse-beginning theory” by the FEMA said is famous as the “Pancake theory”, which has already “collapsed” after being revealed that they ignored the fact of the perimeter columns bending inside just before the beginning of collapse. The FEMA also show us what they investigated after the Towers’ collapse, which includes some incorrectness and omission about the debris from the Towers. However, they never say what happened during the collapse! They never investigated nor studied a lot of performances the Towers demonstrated in their collapse.
The NIST surely studied the cause of the “beginning of collapse”, the computer simulation of which, however, they can never present publicly. And they say in their final report:
[The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impacts to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the condition for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.](NIST NCSTAR; p82) http://wtc.nist. gov/NISTNCSTAR1C ollapseofTowers. pdf
In short, “we did never investigate the WTC Towers ’ collapse and won’t do it forever,” for it is their “final report”. Actually the NIST answered to the families of the victims in its letter in September 2007 as:
"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
Well, well… They’ve explained powerfully and energetically the “beginning of collapse” but never touched the collapse itself, what happened during it, how collapse concretely sequence itself from the top of the building to the bottom.
You can see them:
Also you can see what happened after collapse, which are almost perfectly put aside in the “official story”;
These are only one portion of the photographic information, and I can also show you vast amount of video information but I don’t want use up your time.
If one has sufficient knowledge of physics or mechanics, if he/she knows the meanings of the terms ‘momentum’, ‘energy’, ‘force’, ‘mass’, ‘acceleration’ etc., he/she will immediately notice what these evidences mean.
The WTC Towers ’ collapse is the greatest key factor of this attack, and in the “official story” they are reluctant to refer it the most.
There only exist concealment and fabrication. There are still so many people who believe jet fuel melted the steel columns of the Twin Tower , the demagogy delivered by mass media and some shameless scientists immediately after the attack. Even if jet fuel burns under the best condition, it will produce far lower temperature than the melting point of steel, which can be known easily by seeing your kerosene stove. Those who have studied physics in university can clearly tell us the heat of the fire can never be conducted in the steel column structure even to the extent of 50 meters. The fire took place in an only small upper portion of the Towers.
The collapse of the Twin Tower is physically impossible. It’s clear! Now there is only one “collapse theory” by Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou who perfectly and shamelessly throw away the facts seen in collapse into a dump. Many physical scientists, architects and engineers have always dumed up about this theme. They can say about the “initiation of collapse” but it is taboo for them to refer to what happened in the collapse and why.
I only regret that some intelligent people, like Prof. Noam Chomsky, are very reluctant to touch the 9/11 attacks. And those who are guarding this fiction always say “conspiracy theorist!” and “anti-Semite!” to those who doubt the story referring many facts. But why will pointing the facts and asking the question be “anti-Semite”? ?
I can never understand. Is it “anti-Semite” to say “Why can several hundreds tons of materials be accelerated horizontally in a very short time, like 0.1 second, from zero to 20m/s, which requires 20 times as big acceleration as the gravitational one?” Or, is it “conspiracy theorist” to ask “Why did concrete, with the greatest volume in the Towers, that fell from 300 meters high, from 100 meters high or even from 10 meters high equally turn into dust with average diameter of 60 micrometers?”
Yes. It was a terrorist attack! The terrorists attacked the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. They surely attacked many innocent American people, and 24 innocent Japanese. But also they attacked our brain, thought and intelligence. They are intellectual terrorists!
It will be really regretted that many of the most intelligent people in the world have ignored this intellectual attack, destruction of scientific knowledge and ignorance of the facts and avoided referring it, even thinking of it. I believe Dr. Barrett is one of those intelligent people who have enough courage to accuse this terrorism.
I don’t know whether the professor Chomsky is a “gate keeper” or not. I think he might have some greater concern than facts and truth. That’s all.
The re-investigation on the attack will be the absolute task for the US Government, and people who have been fooled and blinded by the “official story” will have to push the Government to re-research on the fateful incidents.
This is my point of view. Bye.
From Joe Quinn
You say that you cannot accept the "Mossad/Jews" authorship of (or at least involvement in) 911 because you "consider it a deeply pro-Jewish claim implying that only Jews are capable of enterprises of great pith and moment". But the rational discourse on 9/11 does not point the finger at Mossad on this basis but rather on the basis of the available evidence. Two central pieces of this evidence being the airport security companies at 3 of the 4 airports being owned by former Israeli security personnel, and the "dancing Israelis" - reportedly Mossad and/or other Israeli military intelligence members - who were apprehended on 9/11.
As for Chomsky, I agree that he is entitled to his opinion and should not be attacked for holding it. But is it not simply that Chomsky fails to accept the Israeli - 9/11 connection, but that he has dismissed investigation into the 9/11 attacks as unimportant. Again, this is his opinion, but it is hard to understand how a man of his intelligence could honestly come to such a conclusion. You suggest that Chomsky is the "big gun", and this is true, but only because of his position and standing in the academic world, and I believe this may be a contributing factor to his stance on 9/11. Mr Chomsky not only has a reputation to uphold, but also a job to keep and a family to provide for. There have been others in US academia that have already learned that the "9/11 truth movement" tends to have a decidedly negative effect on their careers.
From Dr. Siegfried E. Tischler
CHOMSKY: somebody who has been treading on nearly ALL toes there are for half a century does have a most amazing collection of enemies. As you so rightly point out - without him the academic world of dissent would be a hell of a lot poorer; as the Sufi say: a Guru has to only show his disciple what to read and what to do.... the HOW is up to them.
From Blagovesta Doncheva - Bulgaria
I. Re your – alas, our – 11th of September
I was of those who celebrated the 11.09. CELEBRATED. I repeat it to clear away all possible doubts I have written just that. We CELEBRATED - as many people round the world DID. We gathered in the afternoon of that same day in a cafe and drunk a cup of coffee each – we were too poor to allow ourselves something more. (Today we are even poorer – too poor to allow ourselves even entering a cafe… A boring detail, excuse me.)
It was a wonderful afternoon – so sunny, so calm – as the first sunny day after a long ugly storm. I won’t forget that feeling of freedom – the restored ability to breathe freely again – as if an enormous pressure had been taken off our chests after a very long time. We sat there round an outside table basking in the sun, not talking, simply smiling quietly to one another, handshaking with other people who came to our table with their joyous "Congratulations!” Yes, we all did that – congratulating one another as if that day were a national holiday – i.e. a very meaningful international holiday. At that moment we could not imagine that it was in fact the Bloody Beginning of the Bloody Return to the Dark Ages in the XXI-st Century… We were like slightly drunk persons – drunk from that newly found freedom to breathe again after more than ten years. And, N.B.! - even on that Day of Emotions one of us dared to say: “It is impossible …
THEY have done it themselves.” We quickly hushed her – we did not want to be rational yet… children-like, we wanted to elongate that newly found ability to notice and enjoy a nice day - although we all felt the stirring warnings deep inside...
But the 12th of September was the Day of Rational Thinking. And then, with that heavy burden again back in our hearts we called one another and arranged another meeting – this time the Meeting of Logically Thinking Adults, not a group of smiling children. We met in the same cafe, so forlorn, so sad, so full of horrifying forebodings. Again there was no need to talk. We sat there silently, even not daring to look one another in the eyes fearing we can see the horror we felt in the eyes of the others...
I repeat: we K-N-E-W it was an inside job on the next day of 11th of September. Not on the basis of the facts you have unraveled since then but by the simple force of the simple LOGICAL THINKING. And we are VERY ORDINARY PEOPLE. Yes, ordinary people but well informed. We had already read about Pearl Harbor . The Tonkin Bay . The US Liberty – and especially Berlin 's Reichstag (now nobody remembers Georgi Dimitrov – but we do, he was one of us, he was a Bulgarian – how could we forget it?) And not only this. Just about that time we were actively engaged in unraveling the manufactured LIES of CIA think-tanks about the SOVIET UNION and STALIN. So, we K-N-E-W. On the 12th of September we KNEW. And when the Truth Movement appeared (at last!) and began to stir I read some of the facts they gathered, satisfied myself that they ALL proved what we KNEW, and stopped following their efforts – what for? We are well educated Slavs, not a heap of US citizens
deliberately amputated of the ability to think – to ask questions and find answers – in the US schools. (Now the same is being done in our Bulgarian schools with our Bulgarian children…) But in Socialist Bulgaria my generation had been DELIBERATELY taught to THINK – to ANALYZE – to OBSERVE and MAKE CONCLUSIONS! So, I am neither 1/ one of the purposefully brainwashed US citizens to be explained at length that sun was rising in the East (and that sun” and “East” are not a thing you can buy in the neighboring mall), nor 2/ a comfortably established OFFICIAL “dissident” like your Chomsky The Great Lion Heart.
So much for the Beginning of the End for our Planet – 11th of September 2001.
II. Re your Chomsky The Great Lion Heart
I personally also passed through the stage of admiring Chomsky. I have translated a book and long articles by him into Bulgarian (And – of course – I very often stumbled on his notorious sentences almost every third of which started at the beginning of a page and ended almost at its bottom. I had to cut them into several independent sentences to make his writing understandable! Even at that early stage I used to ask myself for whom he was, in fact, writing. Definitely not for an ordinary reader, I told myself. Now I suspect that one of the reasons he was approved for an OFFICIAL “dissident” might be the fact that his writings were apparently addressed to a narrow university and scholarly elite that can NEVER get dangerous and turn into a “Threat to the National Security of the USA”. (I hope I have quoted that notorious BLOOD-DRIPPING, CORPSE-SMELLING phrase…)
And then I came across worrying things – small things I kicked back and don’t remember but they stayed there and kept sending red signals.
Till YUGOSLAVIA and 24th of March 1999.
24th of March is a religious holiday for us, the Orthodox Slavs – Annunciation. And also my Name Day: translated, my name is Annuncia. Well, I have no Name Day anymore – it was bombed away in 1999. But still I must be regarded as a very lucky person: I have lost a Name Day, but I am alive and whole in difference to the butchered Serbs – Iraqis – Afghans – Pakistani - Palestinians - African people - Haiti people – and so on and so forth to the End of the World…
On 24th of March 1999 USA and EU + Canada started bombing YUGOSLAVIAN children and elderly, hospitals and churches, TV stations and embassies, plants and houses. Gum chewing IDIOTS installed in war planes started destroying a well-to-do country almost in the heart of Europe .
And what was the justifiable OFFICIAL reason for that MONSTROISITY?
That the President of YUGOSLAVIA – an intelligent leader of a country but definitely NOT a fighter – had managed to eat for breakfast 100,000+ Albanians (maybe together with their cows, pigs and lice. I don’t know. CIA wouldn’t say.)
Mind – we are talking about an European country with highly educated population and century long history of culture. We are NOT talking about an African tribe from the 15th century - or some century BC.
Not well worked out reason – very bad CIA job indeed.
Don’t worry – it is only a preamble. I haven’t forgotten I am writing about your Chomsky The Great Lion Heart.
One day I received a copy of his newest book on still the newest USA war enterprise - in EUROPE this time - and an offer that we translate it into Bulgarian and publish it here. So I started reading – I had already got a glimpse of his position on the USA and EU + Canada aggression on YUGOSLAVIA but I had chosen not to believe - in homage to Chomsky still The Great for me. But – here it was in his book staring at me: Milosevic the Man-Eater (the Monster, The Vampire, John the Ripper, etc.) had eaten/killed/ butchered/ fried at stakes, boiled in huge cauldrons, etc. thousands and thousands and thousands of poor, innocent, white clothed, angel-like Albanians – WAW! Aw! W!
I wrote to him asking him HOW DID HE KNOW.
You can’t imagine his answer – you simply can’t!
He wrote that he has read it in the CIA (!!!) DOCUMENTS!!!
I swear that is just what he wrote! No joke. No mistake. He wrote that surely without batting an eye.
A pause – to give you time to laugh hilariously or shed a bitter tear.
I didn’t do either. I never wrote to him again. Since that day for me your Chomsky The Great Lion Heart is stone dead. He does NOT exist in my world. But you have chosen to let him linger in your worlds. Your choice. And when you began discussing him in, approximately, the line of “to be or not to be” – i.e. is he Great? Or Shit? Maybe he is not great but only a Lion? Or governmental OFFICIAL “dissident” licking governmental ASSES 24 hours per day? – I feel like screaming. But I can’t do that because I live in a crowded city not in the woods (what a pity!). Still, periodically you most obstinately devote yourselves on endless - on the surface aimless - discussions of the "Good Man" – excuse me, the “Very Kind Man” (now the quote is right, isn’t it, dear Jocelyn? By the way, we are NOT discussing his character here and eventually appetite, but his political opinions and positions. Don’t worry, it is only a tiny detail – and
you’re not to blame. It is your “education” system - or, more exactly, the total lack of it.)
I want to ask you all a question: aren’t there heaps of really troublesome subjects to discuss and think over? I wonder why exactly Mr. Shamir has started that time-losing, worthless discussion? Just when an USraeli nuclear war is looming at the horizon...
Some millions will die very soon in the horror of the nuclear mushrooms – but what are some millions for us to cry for them at least?
Let’s instead discuss an US governmental servant.
Now do you understand why THEY need official “dissidents”? Look what good work both Chomsky and – alas! – Shamir have done for THEM!
From Hans Olav Brendberg, Norway:
A little comment on the Chomsky debate:Chomsky – like everybody else – should be criticized when his argument is one-sided, erroneous or suffers from lack of logic. But Chomsky is not a man free to take on every question. He is an old man who has only limited time left to complete his lifes work, and our enemies wold delight if this work could be derailed, even on minor issues.
And the label of “gatekeeper” do not fit. Chomsky is not the man who make polemic against “antisemites”, “conspiration theorists” etc. He is silent on some issues – and that silence should be respected, at least up to a point. We should also keep in mind the role Chomsky has had in promoting the work of others, eg. Israel Shahak, Norman Finkelstein etc. That is not a “gatekeepers” role. But his comment on Mearsheimer/ Walt was not his best moment – and there he maybe played the role of gatekeeper.
The problem is not Chomsky, but the “Chomskyites”, the lazy and small-minded leftist who do not want the job of clearing new field for thought – like Chomsky do – but who strictly limit themselves to the terrain already cleared by Chomsky, and who dogmatically condemns everyone who seek gain new terrain in different directions. I really am not sure that Chomsky is all that happy about having this kind of followers, but as we know: In politics you cannot always select your own following.
I really think Jeff Blankfort and James Petras makes a lot of sense when they try to point out the weaknesses of leftist analysis of the Palestine question. But I think they are too harsh with Chomsky. Their main target is/should be these kind of narrowminded leftist of the “chomskyite” type. Those people should be confronted more, without making Chomsky himself the main problem. Our differences with Chomsky is important enough, but could be discussed without making his person a big issue. He is a man who has done more than his job, and this demands respect even when one disagree on minor issues of principle.